Daniel Moore Continues His Fight
The blog at al.com reports on Mr. Moore's recent statements about the lawsuit: "We believe that a jury will quickly figure things out. We want to get to trial and UA doesn't . . . ."
Hooray, Mr. Moore!
By submitting any photo or information to The Eclectic Eye, you hereby grant to The Eclectic Eye an irrevocable, perpetual, and royalty-free right to use, reproduce, edit, display, transmit, prepare derivative works of, modify, publish, and otherwise make use of the submitted photo.
By submitting your Submission . . . VIMEO shall be entitled to unrestricted use of any Submission for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the submitter.
When you give us Content or post or display Content on the Site, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise the copyright, publicity, and database rights and any and all Intellectual Property Rights you have in the Content, in any media known now or in the future.
Creativity isn't the hours of work and the years of experience that go into creating the original creative work. Creativity is taking someone's creation and splashing a little yellow paint on it. THAT's creativity. You call it a mash-up, and you're on the cutting edge of creativity, and you are so much more creative than the person who did the original work that they aren't even worth mentioning, unless they have agreed to abandon all their rights and use the borrower's licensing system, Creative Commons.
Earlier this year, New York gallery organizer James Danziger was planning a show featuring Obama campaign art, including the Fairey poster. He wondered whose photo had been used, but Mr. Fairey refused to say. Online searching found it to be Mr. Garcia's photo. When the AP learned the poster was based on its photo, it sought standard licensing terms from Mr. Fairey, who refused. . . .
[Manny] Garcia [the photographer of the photo at issue said:]"When I found out [my photo had been used], I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn't belong to them and then use it," he said. "That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn't mean it belongs to you."
[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute an action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim by entering an appearance within sixty days after such service, but the Register's failure to become a party shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to determine that issue.
[I]n consideration of their providing the Competition, each entrant grants a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual licence to WWT to feature any or all of the submitted images in any of their publications, their websites and/or in any promotional material connected to this competition for a period of no more than five years.
The TRO was valid for 10 days or when the Court could render its decision on a preliminary injunction. Note that the band members are representing themselves (a/k/a "pro se") and thus are likely at a disadvantage when litigating this matter.
On March 9, the Court heard arguments on The Star's request for a preliminary injunction. The Court granted the injunction and again found:
The Judge then ordered that the Defendants "are enjoined and restrained from either directly or indirectly using or copying the subject material during the pendancy of this case." At trial, the Defendants may be able to prove that the use was a fair use. In the meantime, though, the band can't use the photograph. Thus, injunctions are another powerful tool to use to fight copyright infringement.
Thanks to Joseph J. Beecher for submitting this topic.
The University of Texas at Austin and its affiliates enjoy a limited right to reproduce photographs of Landmarks' projects for educational and promotional purposes. The university does not, however, own the copyright to these works of art and it may not reproduce these images for commercial purposes. Any party who seeks to reproduce art in the Landmarks collection for commercial gain must first obtain permission from the copyright holder, which typically belongs to the artist or the artist's estate.
[Y]ou agree that such material is provided to us on a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, unlimited, worldwide, transferable, non-exclusive basis, and that we (including our partners, agents, affiliates and service providers . . . may reproduce, modify, archive, publish, display and otherwise distribute such material as we see fit in any medium now known or hereafter developed, in any manner we see fit (for example, online or offline derivative works) and for any purpose . . . without the requirement of providing you any form of compensation.